VSTi's

[eepyikes]

Someone else on here mentioned that it would be great if the VSTi's were "racked", a la Cubase. It seems like a much simpler approach for instruments like Kontakt that have multiple tracks feeding one instrument.

[Dstruct]

i would also love a rack for vsti. simply insert one -> all channels will be created automatically in the mixer and in the arrange we only would need to insert "midi" tracks.

[eepyikes]

Exactamundo...all this channel routing makes me dizzy. Nice as an option, however.

[aldi]

don't like that, i love to have even multiple outs of a vsti on one track managing the outlevels in the fxchain directly (a graphical fxchain routing window/fxwindow would be great though). but optional that would be no problem as allways:)

[eepyikes]

If history is any guide, there are/will be many people who are trying to write pieces through Kontakt/GPO/etc where there are 15+ instruments that all need to be routed to the mixer.
The problem is that if the channels aren't automatically created in the mixer, you have to create the additional tracks/routings for all of these instruments manually. That takes a tremendous amount of time, and gives too much room for error and confusion.
Remember also that within Kontakt, the instruments have to be routed to the Kontakt outs as well. So the whole process is so time intensive, like having to re-snake your patchbay every time you record. A rack option just cleans the whole operation up so you can just load the instrument and go.

Cheers

[norbury brook]

I agree 100%, setting up multi timbral multi out VST's is a PIA. remembering how to route the audio and midi tracks in and out of the main VSTI gets mind boggling.you need a separate midi track for each channel,a separate audio output for each channel plus the master VSTi track which needs to accept all the separate midi tracks on each midi channel then send the audio out to the separate audio channles........it takes about 100 times longer than in Cubase.Once you've done it then you can save as a track template though...thank god.

I suppose with the complexity of routing,this is the price to be payed for such flexibility :D what I gain in being able to record the outputs,I loose in the long set up time.


An option to do it either way would please all camps :D


MC

[Billoon]

So the whole process is so time intensive, like having to re-snake your patchbay every time you record.


You only have to set it up once, then save it as a track template. ;)

I prefer to set it up my way intsead of being forced to used Cubases fixed routing. eg. It creates multiple tracks for multiout VSTis even if you only want to use 1/2...in REAPER, its your choice. :)

[eepyikes]

It's true that Cubase creates extra outs that you don't need. Perhaps Reaper could create them but allow you to delete them individually.

Saving as a template still may not be helpful because one has to be able to grasp the process to begin with. I think some people may be able to, others are gonna be lost.(and by the way, I think the help section on this doesn't explain the part about assigning midi channels to each track) And then you have to wire up the instruments and make the templates, which could add up to serious man-hours when you consider all instruments and possibilities.

The cool thing about a rack is that you still have the choice to do it the other way, but if you want it short and sweet, it's there.

[Resonance]

You only have to set it up once, then save it as a track template. ;)

I prefer to set it up my way intsead of being forced to used Cubases fixed routing. eg. It creates multiple tracks for multiout VSTis even if you only want to use 1/2...in REAPER, its your choice. :)

I agree with Billoon. I'm not a fan of Cubase's routing - and saving templates is a better alternative IMO.

[eepyikes]

Better in terms of flexibility, not ease of use.

Don't get me wrong, I think the track templates are awesome for many uses, including multi out instruments. I just think that down the line, you're gonna see request after request for help from users who just don't understand how to set up routing for multi-out instruments.
Right now most people here get it. But right now, most people here are early adopters and tweakers who are used to figuring stuff out. A year from now, when Joe composer rolls in here and all he wants to do is compose, it is very condescending to just say "well Joe, you can't figure it out so go back to Cubase." Uncool. Why not just make it easier for the legions of Joes that are going to come around? It doesn't hurt anyone else to add the option.

p.s. anyone care to upload a track template for "BFD All" and "BFD Ultimate"?

[Jae.Thomas]

eep, search for it, its around.

I uploaded em myself.

[eepyikes]

Thanks Jason. I searched for BFD to no avail, I'll keep looking.

[Jae.Thomas]

this should do it

http://www.cockos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5874&highlight=BFD

[Dstruct]

My latest idea:

To sum it up again:


REAPER threats VSTi as FX too. Steinberg does it differently with their Instrument rack (which mimics hardware connectivity).

In REAPER you can insert more then one VSTi on a track and you can even place them after an FX.

I think it would be great for the "hardware" people to get an option to force all VSTi to be placed before FX plugins and to threat them as "Pre FX" sound source too.

Bypass FX should not bypass VSTi in this "hardware style" mode too. On a mixing console you also don't mute the sound source by bypassing the insert FX! Sending a channel pre-FX will send the sound of the synthesizer.

[ivansc]

Not in front of reaper but are you SURE that bypassing an effect in a chain will automatically mute any vsti in the chain??? That sounds wrong.
I routinely have both EZD2 and AD2 on the same track, with additional plugs applied and never see any issues with losing sound if I mute an effect plug on the track.

[DarkStar]

I think he means click the Bypass button in the TCP or MCP.

Perhaps (FR) click => Bypass all plug-ins and right-click => Bypass effects only ?

[ivansc]

Hm. Since I am usually "trying" different plugs at the mix stage, I pretty much always do any swapping in the mix panel.
In fact come to think of it I always open the FX window in TCP as well rather than just "bypass" for the exact reason the OP wants an optional method.
To me, having a (to me) non-intuitive "option" selection is actually more effort.

Can't see my self using it, but if it makes you happy, why not?

[ashcat_lt]

you need a separate midi track for each channel,a separate audio output for each channel plus the master VSTi track which needs to accept all the separate midi tracks on each midi channel then send the audio out to the separate audio channles........
None of this is actually true. You don't "have to" do any of that. You could just as easily use exactly one track and have all the same functionality. It might end up a bit of a mess, but...

The real point is that setting up the routing for VSTis is nothing different than setting up any other complex routing in Reaper, and if you don't get it, you need to learn. Conversely, setting up a multi-in>multi-out VSTi is a great way to learn how to do more complex routings. This really is the best thing about Reaper, and if you can't be bothered to finger it out, you're missing a lot!